Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people • Hacker News Board

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#181

Post by adriancr » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 1:26 PM UTC

codeflow2202 wrote: post #178

adriancr wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts. The journal you reference studies Marek's disease in chicken. The vaccine does not prevent transmission (which farmers found good enough). As such, all vaccinated chicken can get the virus but dont get sick and still tran…

The fact that it's about chickens is irrelevant. This is about how viruses evolve when confronted with an immune system. But you are correct that the lower the transmission rate from vaccinated people, the lower the risk of enhanced viruses. But your 95% is debatable. The number goes drastically down depending on which vaccine you use, the new strains, and probably time. My point is that the myth that unvaccinated pe…

> My point is that the myth that unvaccinated people are the part of the population creating enhanced variants is false.

Incorrect. By logic, 95% (or whatever % you want) of the vaccinated population will not catch virus. As such, virus cannot evolve in them. Logical right?

This is what they study says.

> ... anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission ...

The vaccines we have PREVENT transmission with various effectiveness. The vaccine in study did NOT. Since viruses could still infect vaccinated chicken, it evolved.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#182

Post by CogitoCogito » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

codeflow2202 wrote: post #171

CogitoCogito wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't understand your post. > But in general the chances are much higher for a neutral/bad result in case of an external intervention for which our body was never put in contact before (not even in past generations as in the case of lipid nano particles). What is this even saying? The virus is external to the body. The vaccines are external to the body as well. Study after study shows that the side-effects…

> What is this even saying? The virus is external to the body. The vaccines are external to the body as well. Study after study shows that the side-effects of the vaccine are lower than the issues caused by the disease. Saying that the virus is dangerous doesn't make the vaccine safe in the long term. You might be right, but you have no basis to suppose it's safe in the long run. You are just betting it because tv to…

> Saying that the virus is dangerous doesn't make the vaccine safe in the long term. You might be right, but you have no basis to suppose it's safe in the long run. You are just betting it because tv told you so.

I'm not supposing it's safe in the long term. I'm supposing _nothing_ about the long term because we don't have that information. Maybe it is not safe in the long term. We'll find out some day I guess. Maybe it will lead to unexpected health _benefits_ in the long term? Who knows? So why would you weigh the potential dangers over any other potential advantages of taking it?

Anyway here are two serious questions to you:

1. Specifically how long is long enough before you'd consider the vaccine safe (compared of course to all the problems that can be caused by not taking the vaccine).

2. Do you feel ashamed allowing your fellow citizens to take on this potential risk and you forgoing when it helps end the pandemic for you and them? (Feel free to ignore this question if you are vaccinated, but are just being argumentative.)

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#183

Post by dariusj18 » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

underseacables wrote: post #159

A quick Google search shows there are a lot of fake cards that you can download, and since the card is essentially a public document, I’m surprised more people are not just faking it. Maybe they are?

Forging a vaccination card is a Federal crime with up to 5 years of prison. Of course there may only be one or two high profile cases to come from such an abuse, but maybe it would dissuade at least a few people.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#184

Post by native_samples » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

Pyramus wrote: post #60

adriancr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. you can still catch things as vaccines are not 100% (some are 50-60% effective, mRNA are 90-95% so far) 2. It can mutate in people that catch it to avoid vaccine / cause other issues. Imagine if it started causing blindness... would you care then of being forced to take a 5-10% / 50% chance of catching it? 3. No chance of wiping it out without everyone vaccinated. 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont wor…

> 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it. I think that needs to be highlighted more. It's like wearing seatbelts, but for other people. I would consider that the fabric that most societies are made of, taking care of the people that can't for themselves, and in many cases through no fault of their own (e.g. genetics).

I don't think that's really the case. There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc, and nobody claims the herd immunity threshold is anywhere close to 100%. To suppress it to the point that there are much greater threats in such a person's life only requires reaching that threshold.

Unfortunately, public health officials have admitted in public they are lying about the thresholds (e.g. Dr Fauci said he gave different numbers depending on what opinion polls were saying). However it's likely to be about 70%-80%, perhaps less because those numbers assume no pre-existing natural immunity, which doesn't seem to be correct. That means there is scope for very large numbers of people do decide not to take it if they don't want to, before herd immunity is threatened at all.

Double unfortunate, I feel like nobody cares about these things, because they see it as a chance to enforce collectivist decision making on people in the name of "society". The actual group safety arguments never come with concrete numbers to assist with the underlying intuitions and that is suspicious.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#185

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

forcry wrote: post #177

skinkestek wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this is a problem in our current society, rightly or wrongly a lot of people don't trust government or many mainstream information resources, but unfortunately instead of becoming rationally sceptic, a lot go over to blatant misinformation and conspiracy. Yep. As I have tried to explain one of my friends: even if you assume every official is prone to lying something can be read from their words and actions.…

> When I see doctors who have 5-7 more years of studies in the field than me lining up for the vaccine that is a useful signal. Let me share some similar signals that I see. Let us talk about the VAERS database. I wonder why is it not made in such a way that it can collect high quality data? Like for example, make strict mandates to the healthcare people to document each and every AEFI that they notice. But right now…

> I wonder why is it not made in such a way that it can collect high quality data?

Because it's made in such a way that it can collect all data from self-reporting as well. It's meant to be a tool find signals in the noise, not be restrictive or definitive.

> But right now, the covid vaccines are not even in the list of vaccines whos events are reportable under law

That list seems to be things which are legally mandated reporting -

"In addition, healthcare professionals are encouraged to report any clinically significant or unexpected events"

That doesn't mean other things can't be or aren't being reported.

> And [2] where they choose not to enforce data collections in name of promoting vaccinations.

What part of that link says that? Hard to tell.

> Well I guess anywhere in the world, the authorities will be taking a big risk by going against W.H.O.

Why? What sort of risk do you think it might be? What sort of power do you think the WHO has to suppress effective treatments in countries around the world?

Ivermectin, like HCQ before it, appears to have been latched onto by the antivax crowd with no evidence to support it. We do have some effective treatments now, like tocilizumab and dexamethsone, supported with good clinical evidence.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#186

Post by native_samples » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

CogitoCogito wrote: post #130

forcry wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine. No, at some point you are trusting some external entities. You trust the information because you trust the entities that provide it. When you say that someone else is irrational, you are doing that because that person does not share your trust. And to that person, in all probability, what you are doing might be irrational. In the end, I think no one ha…

You don't have the right to simply ignore all the research going into this and be treated seriously. But I guess believe whatever you want if it makes you feel better.

Fortunately, being forced to believe everything scientists say is neither a law nor a responsibility. And just as well because they routinely contradict themselves or turn out to have been lying. See: the denunciation of the lab leak theory by Daszak and other virologists, which successfully suppressed this obvious common sense idea for a year. So in fact people do have that "right".

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#187

Post by AYBABTME » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

CogitoCogito wrote: post #76

AYBABTME wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of people just lack the education and context that you have, and so don't come to the same conclusion. Just 25min ago, I was in favor of getting vaccinated myself, but didn't understand why I should care about other people getting vaccinated too. And I'm not a bigot (I hope) or a person more ignorant than the average. If you believe this to be true, I think we can agree that it's probably fair to at lea…

I don't disagree with you that it's a lack of education and context, but I personally don't accept that as an excuse. Information about vaccination is totally ubiquitous. Being ignorant of this is just not okay. So no after a year and half of inundation of information explaining these basic fact I honestly am disgusted that people still hold these beliefs. I basically lose faith in society because of it. As an aside,…

> As an aside, I never called you (or anyone else I was referring to) a bigot.

I didn't mean to claim that you did, but after re-reading the two sentences, I can see how it could be read as such. Sorry for the confusion!

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#188

Post by native_samples » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #114

johnisgood wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not so sure. Some side-effects do take time to manifest. They just started talking about how teens get heart issues from it and so forth. We did not know this before either, nor did we know about the AstraZeneca's blood clots. Some take longer time though. We simply do not know. Anyone leaning towards "it is safe" and "it is not safe" is silly, because we just simply have no idea, you cannot claim either for cer…

> how teenage boys get enlarged heart from it https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/17/1007447... " 7 million U.S. teens and preteens (ages 12 through 17) had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine" [...] "more than 300 cases of heart inflammation have been documented [...] mostly in teens and young adults between 12 and 39 years old" Assuming every single one of those 400 (rounding up) cases wa…

This is not the case. The US CDC is heavily backlogged and reports of vaccine injuries aren't being processed in a timely manner, so we don't actually know how many people are being injured by them. We only know lower bounds.

If you look at VAERS then it's clear that this is by multiple orders of magnitude the most dangerous vaccine ever deployed.

https://swprs.org/us-vaccine-deaths-increasing-rapidly/

"The latest weekly US VAERS update added a shocking 2,083 post-vaccination deaths – by far the largest weekly increase to date – raising the total of reported post-vaccination deaths to 9,048. Not all of these 2,083 deaths occurred within a week, as there is a very significant reporting backlog. In total, close to 1,000 post-vaccination miscarriages, more than 3,000 heart attacks, about 7,500 disabilities, close to 20,000 severe allergic reactions, and close to 1,000 cases of heart muscle inflammation in people under 25 have already been reported to VAERS."

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#189

Post by codeflow2202 » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

adriancr wrote: post #181

codeflow2202 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that it's about chickens is irrelevant. This is about how viruses evolve when confronted with an immune system. But you are correct that the lower the transmission rate from vaccinated people, the lower the risk of enhanced viruses. But your 95% is debatable. The number goes drastically down depending on which vaccine you use, the new strains, and probably time. My point is that the myth that unvaccinated pe…

> My point is that the myth that unvaccinated people are the part of the population creating enhanced variants is false. Incorrect. By logic, 95% (or whatever % you want) of the vaccinated population will not catch virus. As such, virus cannot evolve in them. Logical right? This is what they study says. > ... anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission ... The vaccines we have PREVENT transmission with var…

The numbers are between 95% of Pfizer at his best and 50% of Sinovac. And we are not vaccinating to avoid a pandemic, we are doing it during the pandemic making the risk of it happening much higher.

But the final point I was trying to pass is that isolation of the sick will slowly push the virus to evolve in more contagious but less risky variants. Undetected infections in the vaccinated might cause strains that evade the vaccine and possibly be more dangerous (because of the lack of symptoms and isolation.)

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#190

Post by codeflow2202 » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

adriancr wrote: post #181

codeflow2202 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that it's about chickens is irrelevant. This is about how viruses evolve when confronted with an immune system. But you are correct that the lower the transmission rate from vaccinated people, the lower the risk of enhanced viruses. But your 95% is debatable. The number goes drastically down depending on which vaccine you use, the new strains, and probably time. My point is that the myth that unvaccinated pe…

> My point is that the myth that unvaccinated people are the part of the population creating enhanced variants is false. Incorrect. By logic, 95% (or whatever % you want) of the vaccinated population will not catch virus. As such, virus cannot evolve in them. Logical right? This is what they study says. > ... anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission ... The vaccines we have PREVENT transmission with var…

Also:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/